The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON; SATURDAY; APRIL 16, k3(3, detain the House with any lo d ic (422..,:i of the eleetiolit tilt f ,::tehiioti 'liftitly Lints, to prove to the House that that borough prior to the Bill. That 11;11 rieirpr considered the case of Stafford con - HOUSE OF LORDS, Aran 15. have been eet to have an effect there . , hat Ile clide , t.. lorther agree', with ply Noble The Loup .CHANcELLOI4 tools his seat on the Woolsack ,to say it gm non e, In f;vct it wet in . videric'e Oen cloth. rrao has just addreste the tnise: I cannot agree to the usual hour. anAting, less 'Mee in tts.'e ,leaseanStituency than in the pass this Bill unless evidence is produced at the liar of }'our BI AM AND GLOUCE ST ER RAILWAY aid one. la v'enteaffinte o a petition presented to the other Lordships' ijou n ,tpi4lii'dtltiatO the Charges Upon WhiCti it BILL. Ikonse, sel: , , , e't Committee was appointed to inquire into le , , Lord E LLENBOR DUG 11 presented a petition from the tllstallens contained in the petition , and, a liklaiiV4 Ord 1 - 10 LL AND said ibis was net a question of private Cerporatirat and inhabitants of Giouces.tsx in favour of \va s passed. That select cpnynittOs .lade a report i.iterest, but of vast public importance.—( Hear, hear.) If —the report which corstairSisd tne foundation of the state- then they would save the House of Commons horn becoming Gloucester Railway Bill. meats on whieh V.lti present Bill rested. The report con- a repository of bribery, corruption aetl they The Nlarquis of SALISBURY presented a esstltlon from the bankers, merchants, and inhabitants et 13irmingharn, to c104.cl tiltrs—" Ycur committee think it their duty to state as would „paAs 4itlfranOiiiiAelit a the bOrotigh the same effect. On the motion of the Noble Marquis. the their deliberate opinion that corrupt practices havc, prevairtA l lhatr44, i. 4 .•!•.51i such vagrant delinquency had been Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be comonttesi on tor a long series of years in the riettienl,i'4 lkte,tte'shVitill He thought lie could show to their Lordships that Tuesday. Stafford." The Ctm . Htisse nib tiaVA thlt i 111 its opinion, the custom which prevailed of hearing evidence at the bar grist'S,tnik '§ysseniati bribery and corruption had pre- STAMP DUTY ON NEWSCAPERS. general, slriginated . in a mistake, by the first Bill of this nature Lord POLTINIORE presented petitions from Devonshire, , sidled. This Reports he should contend, was o f „as having praying for the rereal of the dutv on newspapers. cient to justify the house in agreeirss: io the Bill. He could b n e n e i n mixed illi up i with a a real Bill of pains and penalties, c..arue_ Certain persons with a crime, named , It IRISH MT:,NICIPAL COR.PORATION BILL. not coattive upon what grounds a ° shadow ef roast tenid he the persons so Charged', and allotted the ptinlshmenti not only The Archhishop at ARM AG H presented a petition from thrown upon the testimony given beteiro Onnntittec of the by the loss of fraiieliise—(" Hear, hear, hear," from the Op ' • 'Armagh, asainst the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. House of Commons. ) Tir how the Repcirt of that Committee positiOn.) Noble Lords cry out "Hear,"—they would do ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. could have lest any of the sv'eigit't and importance which at- well to heat me out.—( A laugh.) The loss of franchise, the Lord SE GRAVE b e gged to call the attention o r th e N o bl e tacked to it when it was first laid before the other House of Noble Lord continued, might be a punishment, though it was Lord on the Woolsack to a petition he had to present from Parliament ; and ao clearly did that Rerett operate upon the not the loss of property. lie never would allow that the th e Ch a i rman o f the Quarter Sessions, and a number of House that the 'Bill for the disfraphisement of the borough of f r anchise was property, and the argument which maintained it magistrates and inhabitants of Gloucester, praying that the Stafford; which bad been Ntlherly opposed, was permitted to to be property would be the greater inducement for the adop trial of criminals might be transferred . from the Assizes and pass almost without tlttiervation. tion of universal suffrage and vote by ballot. It was not Quarter Sessions, to the jurisdiction of the magistrates in their Lord E MC I NBO ROUG H—lt fit elved considerable property, but a trust; and, without referring to the Reform local districts. After the petition had been read by the Clerk amendment in Committee. Bill, but referring to the Crown itself—referring to the House at the table, the Noble Lord stated lie s h ou ld w ithd raw the Thu Marquis of CisANRICARDE—Yes ; but not in the of Commons—it was clearly proved that a trust was revocable petition, on account of an inf o r ma lity i n i t , t h ere b e i ng n o House. It war s however, admitted that evidence had been upon gross and frequent violation.—( Cheers.) If this mea snsnatures on the first sheet of the petition. given which proved that bribery and corruption had been car- sure Inel been a Bill of pains and penalties, it would have been Lord LYNDHURST th oug ht t h e prayer o f t h e petition, reed en to the greatest extent for several years in the borough in this, as in all other cases, the undoubted right of the subject if complied with, would ha ve th e e ff ect o f a b o li s hi ng t r i a l by of Stafford, and the Report to that effect was unanimously to defend his property.; but it was not one of that nature, and jury in many cases. agreed upon. Upon what grounds then could further evidence fortunately not so, because, had that been the case, that House Lord SE GRAVE had already stated his dissent from the be sought T Could any one 'doubt the facts of the case? If might have been held out as the great obstacle to getting rid views of the petitioners, and his wish to withdraw the petition their Lordships were to eatne to the determination of hear- of bribery and corruption. itself, on the ground of informality. ing evidence at their bar, in addition to the evils of delay and Lord ASH BURTON• said the Noble Lord who had just The LORD CHANCELLOR said if the petition had not expense, a very had moral effect would he produced; and an sat down was quite ready to pass the present Bill, with no furs been withdrawn he would feel bound to express his dissent impression would be conveyed abroad that there was a desire ther evidence than that taken before the committee, arid the from the prayer of the petition. on the part of their Lordships to screen the borough of Staf- general notoriety. That was a conclusion to which he (Lord BIRMINGHAM AND DERBY RAILWAY. ford from the consequences of that dilemma in which it was Ashburton) at least could not come, and to which, likewise, Lord H :s.T HE RTON presented three petitions from Bir- placed, and that that H ouse was a ccu s tom e d t o look with a their Lordships, he was sure, would not assent. The Noble mingham, Tamworth, and Burton on Trent, in favour of the more lenient eye upon such offences as those of which the bo- Lord had argued that this Bill was not a Bill of pains arid pe- Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway Bill, rough of Stafford had been guilty than the other branch of nalties, not a Bill to deprive a subject of his property. Kit OR the motion of the Noble Lord the Bill was then read a the Legislature. were not that, it was a measure which would deprive many in secor.d time. Lord LYNDHURST entertained no wish to screen Staf- dividuals of what was of much more value than property, in its ford from any punishment which might be the just consequence more vulgar meaning, as connected with the pocket. If a Bill of its own delinquencies, The object for which he then par- were brought into Parliament to divest their Lordships of their ' ticularly rose was to request of their Lordships not to depart in titles and dignities, with what reason could it be argued that it the present instance from the usual course which they had been did not take away any of their property, that it was no Bill of in the habit of pursuing in respect to all Bills similar to the pains and penalties? His main object in rising was to learn present-( Hear, hear).—because, if they did depart from that what precisely was the state of the town as respected its inha course, the prom:tiling might hereafter he brought forward as bitancy, and the possibility of framing a proper constituent body a precedent to guide the House in cases which might be very —to learn, supposing the delinquency to be proved, whether different from that which was supposed to be the case with re- that was the proper remedy which was proposed by the present spect to the case with respect to the borough of Stafford. Bill. Under the old state of Parliamentary representation, Their Loreships had never been in the practice of proceeding whenever cases of bribery in the close boroughs were brought on any occasion with Bills of this nature except upon evidence before the House he almost invariably voted for the disfran upon oath, taken before the bar of the House ; and their Lord- chisement, which he thought then a remedy applicable to the ships would moreover remember that that there was now upon evil ; but he entertained now, under the new system, very their table a petition from this very borough, praying to be heard great doubts as to the propriety of such a course ; because the by counsel at the bar in opposition to this Bill. The Noble rich man, who took down into the country 3,0001. or 4,000/., Marquis had said that there were two sources of evidence to would then have it in his power to place any town in England support the first, the report of the Committee of the House in the same predicament as the borough of Stafford. The Le of Commons, appointed upon the subject , and, secondly, the gislature dare not deal with cases of large towns as Liverpool evidence taken before that committee. The first answer which and Manchester; to them it could not apply the principle of suggested itself to him (Lord Lyndhurst) upon the point was, disfranchisement. If, then, all those towns, thus open to every that the evidence was not upon oath ; and, that evidence not rich tempter, were to be disfranchised, the House of Commons being upon oath, he, for one, could not proceed to disfranchise would be left composed of the Members of counties, and of the borough unless the charges against it were clearly substan- large manufacturing towns, without that exceedingly useful tiated upon oath. Another ground upon which he could not part of the representation, the Members for moderate think of proceeding with the Bill without further evidence sized towns. He (Lord Ashburton) had no doubt that there was this—that he had frequently seen cases of bribery and cor- had been great bribery in the borough of Stafford. He would ruption made out most clearly in evidence before committees not say that his feeling was one of such strong conviction as of the House of Commons, but which, having been sent up to to render further evidence unnecessary; but he did entertain that House, and afterwards investigated, had come to an en- very serious doubts as to the fitness of the remedy proposed. tirely opposite result.—(Cheers.) The very last case which He had been extensively concerned in electioneering proceeds had been before the House, the case of Warwick, was one ings ; and in the western counties of England, where great directly in point. Never was a stronger case made out than corruption had prevailed, he had seen towns entirely con that of Warwick before the committee of the House of Corn- verted, and become afterwards as pure as any in England— mons. Yet, after the matter had been brought to that House, towns which, if they had been proceeded against, as it was further evidence heard, and the case thoroughly sifted, there desired to proceed against the borough of Stafford, would have was not one Noble Lord who ventured to get up in his place been now locked out from any share in the representation of and support the charge ; and he (Lord Lyndhurst) remem- the country. He thought the House ought not to proceed bored well that the Noble Lord who was then on the woolsack without further information. expressly stated that there was not one fragment of evidence Lerd HOLLAND said a few words in explanation. to support the accusation.—(Hear, hear.) That, then, was The Earl of WINCHIL SE A said that no man or body of one more reason why he could not be satisfied with the evidence men should be deprived of a great public right unless it were that had been already heard.—(Cheers.) Another reason clearly proved that that right had been abused. He agreed which influenced his decision was, that, however he might be with the Noble Baron (Lord Ashburton), that it was those disposed to respect the opinion of the other branch of the Le- who tempted poor men with bribes that should be punished. gislature, yet he could not place such implicit reliance The LORD CHANCELLOR was not aware that there upon its judgment as not to seek information for himself; was at present any proposition before the House, except the that, too, was a distrust founded upon very recent experience, Order of the Day. for their Lotdshtps were aware that no further back than last Lord LYNDHURST had intended to conclude with the session a committee of the House of Commons heard evidence following motion, which he should now submit to their Lord upon a question of bribery, and so clearly in their opinion ships :—That, before the House proceeds to adjudicate further was the case made out, that directions were instantly given to in the case of the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford, his Majesty's Attorney-General to institute prosecutions against evidence be taken at the bar, and the petitioners heard by the guilty persons. Those prosecutions had lately been heard themselves, their agents, and counsel. at the last Assizes for the county of Norfolk, and those against The LORD CHANCELLOR said that it was rather an • . isgiassaUsemoraygrlkArellssommitteo were .unfortunate case for those who argued that this was not a s - s _ _ ..sa,,,,t,fasiie it had_ sawn hop Jury was completely Satisfied, even without calling upon them dealt ,with as if it were—because those individuals woo hau for defence, that they were wholly guiltless of the offences of to do with the borough of Stafford always treated the elec which they were accused.—(Cheers.) And yet they were tive franchise there as property. What did one of the wit called upon to vote for a Bill for the disfranchisement of a be- nesses, who had been examined, say in answer to a question rough upon evidence such as that. But the Noble Marquis put to him? He said that he thought he should not be able to had stated that there was further evidence—evidence before a select five electors in the whole borough who had given their Committee of that House. Upon that point he could only say votes without a bribe. Another witness stated that the num that the evidence was liable to the same objection as the other ber who had been bribed exceeded 75 in every hundred ; but evidence, because it had never been the practice of their Lord- he did not think they amounted to so many as 95 in every ships to proceed to the disfranchisement of any borough, ex- 100. Now this was a pretty broad admission, and, if true, cept upon evidence heard at the Bar upon oath. In alluding ought certainly to lead to the disfranchisement of the place. to the evidence that had been produced, the Noble Marquis Whatever course the House might think it proper to adopt on appeared to forget that the whole was an ex parte proceeding the present occcasion, there ought not to be auy mistake —(Cheers)—that the parties who were accused were never left as to the terms used respecting the character of the Bill. called upon, never had an opportunity of meeting the charge, It had been called a Bill of pains and penalties, but it was not or of cross-examining the witnesses.—( Hear, hear.) Had such, nor had the House dealt with it as such. He was dis. their Lordships ever heard of a criminal proceeding against posed to concur in the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord. persons who had not the means of defence, with no oppor- After a few words from Lord Ashburton, the Lord Chan tunity of cross-examining witnesses—a criminal proceeding cellor, and the Marquis of Clanricarde, in reply, upon mere ex parte evidence ? Was that the idea of jus- The Bill was read a second time, and the motion of Lord tice entertained by the Noble Marquis—an hereditary Judge Lyndhurst agreed to.—Adjourned. and legislator ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But further, who were the witnesses upon whose evidence the charge rested ? Their Lordships would be astonished when they learnt that he had looked at the report, and had not been able to find the name of a single witness—(Hear)—it was all anonymous.— (Cheers.) He could never then bring himself to consent to the disfranchisement of any borough upon evidence of that na ture. But what was the evidence itself? Why, in that evi dence a case of the grossest bribery and corruption was made out against his Majesty's present Attorney-General (Sir John Campbell.)—( Loud laughter.) Would he then assume that charge, that accusation, to be completely established without affording to Mr. Attorney-General the opportunity of appear ing at the bar of that House to defend himself from a charge so grave ?—( Loud laughter.) He was making no rash and unfounded assertion. The extract was to the following effect:— " Question—Have you any knowledge of bribery having taken place at the last or previous elections ? " Answer--LNot at the last, but at Sir John Campbell's. " Question—Did you see the voters paid ? " Answer—l paid them myself at Sir John Campbell's election. I.:TIP - ERIAL PARLIAMEN T. ALMSHOUSES. Lord ASH BURTON presented a petition from the guar dians of the Parochial Union of a district in Essex, in favour of Almshouses. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from an individual in the county of Down, against a clause re lating to Seneschals in the Irish Municipal Reform Bill, and claiming compensation in case it was passed into a law. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. The Duke of CLEVELAND presented several petitions in favour of the abolition of the punishment of death, except in cases of murder. LORD'S D &Y. The Duke of CLEVELAND next presented petitions from various Societies of Wesleyan Methodists praying for the better observance of the Sabbath. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a number of pe. titions to the same effect. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. The Earl of WINCHILSE A presented three petitions from places in Kent complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for relief. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, pursuant to notice, moved for a copy of the instructions from the Admiralty to Lord John flay, the commander of one of his Majesty's vessels on the coast of Spain. Viscount MELBOURNE thought the motion novel in its nature, and directly inconsistent with every notion of public confidence and policy, to ask th , :. production of instructions to an officer—thus making them public, putting the enemy on their guard, telling them of the force at his disposal, and the extent to which lie 'would go. If there were Noble Lords disposed to act 'with Don Carlos, he hoped the House' would not give th.e.ir sanction to such a course, inconsistent as it was with his, Majesty's recognition, the policy of his Majesty's Govc.rnment, and the success of his Majesty's arms. „ The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he understood there was an objection to the production of Lord J. Hay's let ter, but none to the instructions given him at the Admiralty. The Noble Viscount stated that he had no objection to these returns being made. He had stated that in his usual off-hand manner, without well-considering the point in'question.—(A laugh.) But he (the Marquis of Londonderry) wanted to know whether the Noble Viscount was really First Minister of the Crown or not ? They had seen him giving answers in that House, and then going to another place and taking hints from another quarter. He wanted to know to what extent this country was pledged with respect to the war in Spain, and he had a right to call for that information. By the. Tripartite treaty that precious document which had been laid upon their Lordships' table, all the efforts of the allies were to be in common ; that amounted to a declaration of war; and he would be glad to know :f France was a party to that.—( Hear. ) - thrown out against - film by the Ninile Viscount, of taking part" with Carlists. Would the Noble Viscount tell him that France would go along with England in that war? He believed no such thing—he was satisfied that Louis Phillippe knew better than to follow up the mistaken policy of our Government. He complained of the Noble Viscount comir ' , down to that House and making statement s , an d t h en , a f ter having been lectured by the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, unsaying them. He would rather have at once a declaration of war than the discreditable and disgraceful manner in which the system was at present carried on. Earl MINTO regretted that he had been so unfortunate as to have been misunderstood by the Noble Earl (Londonderry.) He had risen to make two statements ; one was that the letter to which the Noble Lord alluded was one of which he had no official knowledge whatever, and further, that the very cha racter of that document rendered it impossible that it could be produced. The Earl of ROSEBERY corroborated the statement of the Noble Lord at the head of the, Admiralty, as, from his po sition, he could hear every word that the Noble Lord said. Earl HARROWBY was neither a Carlist nor a Christine, and he wished most heartily that the country had never in terfered in the quarrel ;—( Hear, hear)—.it would have been much better both for its interests and its honour.--( Hear, hear, from Lord Londonderry.) Lord MELBOURNE had not meant to throw any impu tation on any part of the House. He bad said that he hoped the House would not co-operate with Don Carlos by in sisting upon the production of these instructions. —( Hear.) There was no doubt but the country had passed the strict line of neutrality. Such bad been admitted by the Noble Duke. It was an armed intervention.—( Hear.) That was a state of war, and pro tanto the party to whom we were opposed were our enemies. All that had been done was within the articles of the treaty ; how much further this country would go was for the Government to decide, as circumstances arose. The Government felt, that upon every consideration of national policy, and with regard to humanity, they were bound to put an end to the war as soon as possible. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose amidst loud cries of—Oh, oh He wished to ask one question of the Government, .in consequence of what had fallen from the Noble Viscount. It might be answered or not ; but if not, then he would draw his own inference. Was France a party to the new arrangements which had been entered into? After a few words from the Earl of MINTO and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY. Lord MELBOURNE said, having refused the instructions,_ they would not give the contents of them. Lord FIT ZG ERA LD presented petitions from the counties of Clare and Meath, praying that the expenses of the Irish Corporations Bill may not fall on counties. On the motion of the Marquis of L ANSDOWNE, it was agreed that no more of the evidence taken before the Com mittee on American commercial intercourse should be com municated, except to the Members of the Committee, until further orders. HOUSE OF COMMONS, AWL 15. The' SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes before five o'clock. Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL brought up the Re port of the Committee on the Dublin Steam Navigation Bill. Sir M. S. STEWART, Sir H. PARNELL, and several Scotch Members, were desirous that the consideration of the Report should be delayed till a late period of the Session. Mr. O'CONNELL did not see any necessity for the adoption of such a course. Ultimately it was arranged that the Report should be considered on Tuesday next. On the motion of Mr. GASKE LL the Wakefield Water Works Bill was read a second time and ordered to be com mitted. Mr. BUCKINGHAM presented petitions against the Cheltenham and Swinton Railway Bill. Dr. BOWRING presented similar petitions. SHEFFIELD AND TINSLEY ROAD. An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition against the Sheffield and Tinsley Road Bill. Mr. PARKER presented petitions from Sheffield and another place in favour of the Bill. NOTTINGHAM CEMETERY. Sir RONALD FERGUSSON moved the second reading of the Nottingham Cemetery Bill. HOLYHEAD ROAD BILL. On the motion of Sir HENRY PARNELL, the Bill was read a second time and committed. SHEFFIELD AND TINSLEY ROAD BILL. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND moved the second read ing of this Bill. Mr. B. THOMPSON moved as an amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. PARKER opposed the amendment, and thought the Bill ought to be allowed to go to a Committee. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee, and, if the promoters of the Bill failed in making out a case, then let the House reject it. Mr. BLACKBURNE complained of the hardship of com pelling the inhabitants of the various districts through whose property the road passed, to come before a Committee of that House, and state the grievances to which that measure would subject them. The Canal Company to which the Hon. Mem ber referred, received a tonnage upon all goods conveyed along it to enable them to repair that road : that was why the town of Sheffield was anxious to get rid of that tonnage duty, and throw it upon the agricultural districts. If even every word of the preamble had been proved, it would not justify that House irr passing the Bill. Mr. BUCKING HAM conceived that the Bill would give a boon to the manufacturers of Sheffield at the expense of jus tice. Ile would therefore cordially support the amendment he Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there a peared— " Question—ln what interest are you? " Answer—Sir John Campbell's. " To other questions the witness stated that out of 556 who voted for Sir John, be (the witness) paid 531 ; that 31. 10s. was given for single votes, 61. for plumpers ; that the voters were paid directly after they had voted, but that the money was promised before."—(The reading of this document occa sioned much laughter.) That solicitor then clearly imputed to the Attorney-Gene ral the infamous crime of bribery and corruption.—( Laugh ter.) He would now read to the House part of the evidence of another anonymous witness, described as a banker, long re sident at Stafford : " The evidence of this witness was to the effect that at Sir RAILWAY BILLS. John Campbell's election he (Sir J. Campbell) had drawn The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, as the resolutions of the largely upon their bank, in small notes and coin, and espe- House of Commons on the subject of railway Bills had been cially in silver, altogether to the amount of between 2,0001. presented, should move that the House do now ad o pt the and 3,0001., and that there had been at the time no entertain principle of those resolutions. The Noble Marquis referred ment to account for it." to the suggestions contained in the resolutions, the first o f So far, then, as related to the evidence itself it was impos which was that the Committee of the House should look at sible for their Lordships to proceed, upon it alone, to the dis the report of the House of Commons, and that if the proofs franchisement of this borough. Upon those grounds he could given there were satisfactory. the House should be content not c ons ent to the second reading of the Bill unless evidence without any further examination. The next suggestion was was to be heard at the bar of that House. that an engineer, either on the part of the Government or of The Duke of WELLINGTON said—Having been dis the parties interested, should examine every proposed line o f tinctly re f err ed to by the Noble,Lord for the part which I road, and that these railroads should ulti mate l y become the took with respect to a Bill introduced on a former occasion, property of the country. In this last suggestion lie, for one, havinr reference to the borough of Stafford , I feel i t to b e could not concur. Thy duty now to offer to your Lordships a few observations. The Earl of RIPON said that at present all that was T e , A Bill was sent up to your Lordships from the other House of quisite was, that a plan of the proposed line should be r epo _ Parliament, to enable a Committee of the House of Commons sited in the office of the Clerk of the Peace before 'Lie 30th of to administer oaths to certain witnesses examined before the November. This he considered a great injes:: ice on th e pro., Cottimittce of the other House of Parliament appointed to prictors of the land, and almost a fraud .. upon the persons in inquire into a matter of bribery in the borough of Stafford. vited to subscribe. He hoped, would be in order that 0 tl :,eref?re, that some steps . Your Lordships thought fit to send that Bill to a Committee taken, .ae proprietors of the lands or above stairs, and I was one of the members appointed upon of houses might have a suffi , Lient notice given them. Committee. Your Committee, my Lords, examined witnesses Lord HATHER.TO'et said t}iat it was required that the in order to see whether it was fitting that they should recorn propoted line shoor d he advertised in every county newspaper, mend the' House to pass the Bill, which was no more than a and the various ",oweships stated through which it would pass. Bill to enable the Committee of the House of Commons to After a fdts , words from the Marquis o f S a li s b ury , L ord exam i ne on oath. Abinger t the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Hatherton, and A NOBLE LORD—To indemnify witnesses. the Earl of Devon, The Duke of WELLINGTON—Yes, to indemnify wit- The D u ke o f WELLINGTON thought that the parties messes—that was the object of the Bill. I had mistaken. had a right t o h ave a n inquiry upon oath ; and he, therefore, Your Committee, my Lords, having heard evidence upon the saw no reason why the House should proceed upon the evidence mater before them, agreed to the proposition made to them, gig en before the Committee of the House of Commons. and the Bill was then sent down to the House of Commons. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that it was only in- That House, however, proceeded no further upon the Bill, tended that if the evidence before the House of Commons and there the matter dropped. All I have to say then on Were not d eeme d s atisfactory, that then a further inquiryshould that point is, that I consented to that Bill, founded upon the be instituted upon oath. , evidence which I heard given before that Committee ; but The E ar l o f MANSFIELD should hope the consideratio n . if that had been a Bill of pains and penalties against the of these resolutions would be postponed for a short time, and 1 borough of Stafford I should have required evidence to lie hoped they would not be adopted until a Committee of the r prove the guilt of the borough of Stafford at the bar of this House, evidence quite different from that given before the House had bad the opportunity of reporting whether or not. they were p roper a fewepv,e.r to be adopted. 1 Onnmittee. Subsequent to that transaction the House of After 1 Commons sent to your Lordships another Bill, having for deratood that the As from Lord HATHERTON, it was un_. its object the prevention of bribery and corruption ; that the consideration of thearis of Lansdowne agreed to postpone - Bill was likewise referred to a Committee up stairs, of resolutions until Monday next. STAFFORD D ISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. 1 which I had the honour to be a Member. The Com mi,ttee . entered deeply and anxiously into the . question The Marquis of CL ANRICARDE, in movinre the second. readinc" of this Bill, should detain their Lordships'as briefly . a a' The Noble Lord then on the Woolsack, the V lt i . scount opposite, the Noble Lord the President of possible. The course which h a e o l tn va e s:ow pursuing_was, 140 knew, a novel one, hut one by Stafford p w p a o s r t dby Tio e - t. tie ~ lie Council, and many other Noble Lords, were attached to t Committee, arid they framed a Bill, by which a method cedent. The case of the borough of Stafflu to the nature and the extent compl e t e ly the. nointed out for trying the question of bribery in future, unparalleled, not only as Of the bribery practised there, but also to the cHirecudmidsntante'A tinder a vk n .a c l w A LC h contained a clause to enable the Commissioners ap lc . which it came before their Lordships. . 4 under the Bill to try the particular case of Stafford. ti intend to point() , . ' For the second reading Against it lB Majority -36 THAMES HAVEN RAILWAY Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from a lady of the name of Baker, the proprietress of 8,000 acres of land on the line of road, against certain parts of this Bill. LONDON AND CAMBRIDGE RAILWAY. Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Islington in fa vour of this Bill. CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL. Sir M. S. STEWART presented a petiti on f rom t h e Hol lin.ton Railway Comp an y against this Bill. c. LONDOND ERRY STEAM-PACKET BILL. Sir R. FERGUSSON presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Londo nderr y against this Bill. TEIGNMOUTH HARBOUR BILL. On the motion of Sir J. Y. BULLER, this Bill was read a third time. NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. Mr. W. DUNCOM BE presented a petiti on f rom Hunting field in Yorkshire, ag ainst certain parts of this Bill. SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS BILL. On the motion of Mr. B. Hov the Committee on this Bill obtained leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House. Mr. S. LEFF, VERB resented a petition from South ampton against several clauses in the Southampton Docks Bill. DOVER HARBOUR BILL. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL moved the third read ing of the Dover Harbour Bill. Mr. FECTOR felt called upon to say a few words upon the Bill, for, in his opinion, the Dover Harbour Bill wa s one in which the public had a very great mterest. He bad already given . notice of his intention to move for the a ppoiritilidflt S'Aect Committee on the Bill, and such being the case, he wopld suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet the propriety of Pc-'i,' 9 , l !llt?tlte motion Wednesday, as it was his intention to move f-o,r et g ',.einct Committee to inquire into ; thg. Dover Harbpqr .111)1, nii,Tu'e4da'y teR: L . ~could 4gice°,tic; tib'e stilt es `sbYr 1 of th'u !!eit ,fot 1306, dad the Houie. would agree to his motion: - Mr. HUMP, did, not see any notice on thd .1 4 .1 1 bYkt.or th'e: Doy 4 harbour in the order paper, directly or indirectly, ail he flierefOre toad of ,ktio~y i hiow tVis matter went forward. It was a subject in W tiidii Ve fens. a! Oieth iVteles'i,,lia*ipg been Chairman of a Committee where it was iii.dL4.2flit 101 1 - 64- videration. The shipping interest was subject to heavy in this port, and the House should see that they were relieved. The Commissioners, as far as he could learn, had given any thing but satisfaction, and he thought the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Dover ought to be accceded to . Mr. PLUMPTRE, asone of the' Commissioners of Dover Harbour, bad reason to complain of the insinuations thrown out against the Commissioners, because, on h former occasion, when reference was made to this subject asked if there was any charge against the Commissioners, and none was made, he therefore thought it rather hard to ave such insinuations thrown out. lie humbly submitted that h the Bill should proceed in its regular course. Sir J. R. REID would second the motion for a Select Com- mittce. Mr. ROEBUCK complained of the irregularity of the course adopted ; no notice of the motion appeared on the paper. The SPEAKER said that the course adopted was in per fect conformity with the Orders of the Ilouse. Mr. HUM E submitted that, agreeably to the regulations of that House, although the question had been postponed, it was necessary to give notice. If the present system was adopted, questions might be passed-over, and again brought for,vard at more favourable opportunities. Sir E. KNATCHBUI,L explained. Mr. ROEBUCK, complained of the manner in . which the House had been taken by surprise, by bringing forward the question at a time when no notice had been given. After a few words from the SPEAKER in explanation of the forms of the House, Mr. JERVIS objected to the Bill being committed. It would invest the Company with an unlimited power to borrow money which. they at present did not possess, and on this ground he should oppose it. After some observations from Mr. Fector, Sir Edward Knatchbull, and Sir Thomas Trowbridge, strangers were or ', dered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the Motion For the Amendment 5B Majority for the Adjournment —l2 WRITERS TO THE SIGNET. Sir G. CLERK brought up the report of the Committee on the Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Bill. CHELTENHAM AND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. CRIPPS this Bill was read a third time and passed. Lord J. RUSSELL being called upon by the Speaker, said an Hon. Friend of his had given notice of a motion rela tive to the aggressions of Russia, which was to be brought on on the reading of the order of the day. He begged to ask whether it was his intention to persevere. Mr. P. M. STEW ART said he certainly would. MILITARY FLOGGING. Mr. DUNCOMBE hoped, before going into the public business, the House would favour him with its attention for a few moments while he made a statement rela tive to what had fallen from him last night in the discussion of the question of military flogging. He then called the attention of the Noble Lord, the Secretary at War, to what took place in the army after the restriction of the number of lashes to be given by a Court Martial. The state ments which appeared in the newspapers were correct, and he would take the liberty of reading the report of his speech which appeared in one of them. The Hon. Member then read that part of his speech which charged some Colonel with inflicting the lash at minute or half minute time. This statement was in substance perfectly correct, and he was prepared to stand by it. When called upon last night by the Honourable Member for Nottingham, he then declined giving the name of the officer, because he had no opportunity of communicating with the party from whom he derived his information ; he had not since seen him ; but he had no doubt he would come forward when the proper time arrived, and substantiate the truth of his statement. The name of the officer was Colonel Arthur—( Cries of " Hear") — and the name of the person on whom the punishment was in flicted was Ingram, a gunner in the Artillery. Colonel Arthur wrote a letter to the officers composing the Court-martial. The result was that Ingram was found guilty, and was to receive 200 lashes. The man was in a bad state of health at the time, and when the Court-martial took place, he was declared by the surgeon unfit for punishment, and ordered to the hospital.—( Hear.) When he recovered, the trial took place. He was then brought before the Court-martial, was found guilty, and sentenced to receive two hundred lashes. That sentence was carried into execution ; and Colonel Arthur in a most unusual manner, came down to the parade to see the NO c iiin t e i i n n t ßiCre74 ( 1 ) ;!ii ai i mlPgatfel e t r h e e d t t a l la a c t i 1 t r i li e e E t r i ti l l i vi h . The Major held his watch in his hand, and it required no less than one hour and a-half to inflict the punishment.—( Hear.) He did not want to have Colonel Arthur cashiered or dismissed, but after what he had stated and could prove, he dared the House to the trial of Colonel Arthur. Mr. C. FE RG US SON said he would never give his advice that any officer should be dismissed without an opportunity of being heard. He could not, however, but remark, that it was extraordinary, that among all the complaints that had been raked up against Col. Arthur, the present had not been brought forward. He had supposed that this was a recent case—that an indi vidual commanding a regiment had, in order to defeat the order for restricting commanding-officers from inflicting more than a particular number of lashes, prolonged the sufferings of an in dividual having no opportunity of inflicting what he thought a sufficient number of lashes. But he found now that the case occurred in the year 1820, at a time when command. ing officers had a right to inflict any number of lashes. Under these circumstances he hoped the matter would be allowed to drop. Sir H. HARDINGE, though he had no personal know ledge of Colonel Arthur ' yet from what he had known of his character as an officer, he was sure that he would not allow an hour to elapse, after he had heard of these charges, before he came forward to rebut them.—( Hear, hear.) After a few words from Sir G. GREY, Mr. HUME, and Mr. GOULBURN, the subject was allowed to drop. MARRIAGES BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was very anxious to bring for wards that evening the Bill for the registration of births, arid the Bill for the celebration of marriages, of which lie, before Easter, gave notice that he would that evening move the second reading. He hoped, in order to do that, that his Hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. P. M. Stewart) would give way and allow him (Lord J. Russell) to bring forward this measure.—( Hear.) Mr. STEWART said that notwithstanding there bad been two discussions the case was now much altered, and every day new circumstances were occurring which would make it imperative on the Government to take upon themselves the responsibility of the consequences that might en sue from some settlement of the question. Notwith standing that there had been two discussions, no practical conclusion had been come to, and his endeavour would be to bring the question to a practical issue. If it was the wish of the House that he should withdraw his motion—(Cries of " Withdraw, withdraw.") Sir ROBERT PE EL thought the Honourable Member had stated a most conclusive reason for postponing the motion, because, if there had been two ineffectual dis cussions ; and which had not led to any practical vote, he thought it would be better for the Hon. Member to give notice that he should move a resolution, by which the House might be able to come to some determination upon the subject. He entreated the Hon. Me:nber to give the House two or three days notiq, in order that they might k n o w what the precise course. he intended to take was. He deprecated a de bate upon Foreign policy, on the House going into a debate upon the Registration of Births in England. Mr. STEWART said after what had fallen from the Hon. Baronet, he was not disposed to take up the time of the House. If the Noble Lord would name a day in the following week he would pledge himself to give a specific notice. He thought to-night a most appropriate opportunity, as it was ap pointed for the discussion of the civil contingencies. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would take care to give the Hon. Member notice when the Civil Contingencies were likely to be brought forward.—( Cheers. ) Mr. STEWART wished a day named when he might bring the subject forward. Mr. ATTWO OD said that when he left Birmingham there were several 200 and 250 pounders preparing—he supposed to complete the fortification of the Dardanelles. He hoped his Majesty's Secretary at War was not asleep ; for it was quite clear the Emperor of Russia was wide awake. In answer to a question from Mr. P. M. STUART, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the first day of Supply in the second week would be the most convenient day for his motion. Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH reminded the Noble Lord that the Irish Tithe Bill was fixed for that evening. Sir R. PEEL said the English Registration Bill was fixed for Monday. The question was which was to have precedence. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it was most im portant that the Registration Bill should be proceeded with in the order in which it was set down. Mr. HUME submitted to the Noble Lord, whether h e would not postpone the question of agricultural distress for a week at least. The Marquis of CIIAN DO S said that having notified to the whole country that the question would be brought forward on Friday next, it would be impossible for him to give way. Mr. HUME—Then we stand where we were.—( A laugh.) Sir R. PEEL believed the effect of the Bill was to leave the registration of baptisms and marriages in the Church of England as before. He begged to ask the Noble Lord if that was the case ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as we understood, replied in the affirmative. Sir R. PEEL had no objection therefore to going into Committee to consider the provisions of the Bill ; but many of its details required much consideration. Mr. WILK S supported the Bill. Dr. LUSHINGTON objected to this measure being re ferred to a Select Commitee up stairs, as a Committee had already sat and reported upon the subject. , Sir R. ING LIS maintained that the great body of the mem bers of the Church of England were satisfied with the system of registration as it at present existed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the Bill, "c . ,''lll . 9it 1,,0t1d he a great born to the Dissenters, it would be of i'etY eti'viee to the members of the Church of England. The preetit was most oppressive to the Dissenters. and could not be too at)blished. Sir J. CAMPBELL felt that the ithei+'e would be not merely a benefit to the Dissenters, but would bc! YOVnd to be a benefit to the members of the Church of I:rigVand. tty F y t rt.t to registration at present, as selected to the M?refierS'ef. Cnittrcb of England, it was exceedi n g l y imper feet: there was rid regis 4 ttatfoo of deaths—they merely had a registration' of burials: It was impossible, on this account, to find c'tidiMee'of descent whlt any certainty beyond two genera tions, and tlie eorkequ'ence Was', that this uncertainty led to great litigation and eper;.e. ft was of the greatest importance tH the members of the Church ry4 Englitud, that there should be a i ;e - i!'_ , ,V.aT registration of deaths, bralis i ilnd marriages. lle concurred fusty Ili' the suggestion offereJ by- Right Hon. Baronet, of postponing discussion to a future period. Sir R. PEEL said that if he C3t , id understand that the Bill would place the members of the Churel;b: England in a worse position than they were in at present, he woult? feel 'pound to give it every opposition. He understood the prin,t 4o of the Bill to be, to leave the existing registration unintcrferc with, and to give it the fullest sanction and authority as evidence. Mr. WILK S trusted that the measure would be so im proved as to he entitled to his decided support. Mr. HAWES said if he understood what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord, the Bill did not irovide for a uniform system of registration, but the general .egistrationwas to be confined to a general and uniform re- gistration of births, Sir J. CAMPBELL was sure that the lion. Gentleman had not read the A laugh.) The Bill provided for a uniform system of births, marriages, and deaths, and included all classes of the community, and all sects. Mr. HAVES expressed himself satilied with the expla- nation, After a few words from Mr. BAINES and Mr. EW A RT, Lord J. RUSSELL said that the intention of the Bill was to provide for a national and uniform registration. In the first place, of births and deaths, and next of baptisms and mor riages. With respect to baptisms and marriages, the Minis ters of the Church of England would keep their own registry, as before, and that registration would be equally valid, as it had always been. Baptisms and burials came distinctly under the cognizance of the Ministers of the Church of England. With respect to births, they would have a national registra tration, and a ssparate registration ; and with respect to marriages by the Ministers of the Church of England, they would have a national registration and a separate regis tration, the same as they had always had. But, besides this, they would have a national registration of all marriages, however celebrated; whether by the members of the Church of England or any of the members of the Dissenting sects. All these marriages would be recorded in one general na tional registry. With respect to the marriages celebrated by the ministers of the Church of England, they would have their own separate registration. He trusted that this Bill would be found to fully answer all the purposes of a general regis tration, at the same time that it would not interfere with the existing registration. One of the great advantages of a na tional system of registration would be, that facts which were now in doubt would be clearly ascertained, and so far as births and marriages were concerned, the clearest evidence would be supplied as to descent and inheritance. There would be also the great advantage to the Dissenters, that they could have all these benefits without being compelled to assist at ceremonies to which they had a conscientious objection. Mr. G 0 UL BURN—If the Bill were to pass in its present shape he would give it his utmost opposition. However, he was satisfied to consider the Bill in Committee, and to endea vour to improve it as much as possible. Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be better to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and take the discussion on the third reading. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN asked the Noble Lord (Lord J. Rus sell) whether he would pledge himself to introduce a similar Bill for Ireland ? If not, he would move an instruction to the Committee that the Bill be extended to Ireland, in order to take the sense of the House on the subject. Lord J. RUSSELL would endeavour to consider the sub ject with a view, in a future session, of extending the principle of the Bill to Ireland. Sir R. INGLIS said that on the 26th of May the Noble Lord opposite had stated that he understood that the Catholic Clergy of Ireland were opposed to such a measure. Now, he asked him, would he equally respect the opinions of the Mi nisters of the Church of England, and not press a measure in terfering with them, when it was satisfactorily ascertained that their sense and opinions were against it ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was ready to admit that if a system of registration was wanting here it was more wanted in Ireland, and when they should be able to ascertain in what manner they should proceed, and what ma chinery they should apply in Ireland, he would himself be quite ready to give every assistance to the introduction of a measure to be applied to Ireland. After an observation from Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN expressed himself satisfied with the promise that had been given. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next. MARRIAGES BILL. On the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Dui Denei read, Mr. PO ULTER expressed a hope that the Noble Lord would consent to strike out the fifteenth clause. Mr. HUME was opposed to the suggestion, as he thought it the most valuable clause in the Bill. Mr. GO ULBU RN would, when the fitting occasion came, be prepared to satisfy the House that this Bill interfered with the conscientious scruples of the members of the Church of England. He would, however, on the present occasion, con fine himself to the question whether the Bill now before the House did not afford increased facilities to clandestine mar riages, and did not open a door in this respect to every man, whether Dissenter or member of the Church of England, and ox a point, too, in which the interests of families were most seriously concerned. It was for the House to consider how far protection against clandestine marriages was afforded by this Bill. By the existing law of England there were certain guards against clandestine marriages. In the first instance there was the necessary publication of banns. First, there was the necessity that these banns should be published three times in the parish in which each of the parties must have lived for a limited period. This publication of course took place in the presence of many who must be acquainted with the parties about to be married, and so far all the advantages of the fullest publicity were obtained. The banns were a publication of the intention of the parties to engage in mar riage, and in the rural parishes they afforded a certain secu rity against clandestine marriages, and in other parishes so far a tolerable security against secret or improper marriages. The next security afforded by the existing law was that it re quired that the marriage should be celebrated in the church of the parish in the customary and recognised place for such celebration. It was also required that all marriages should be celebrated within the hours of eight and twelve o'clock, the very time in which the public would be most likely to have their attention awake, and when any clandestine marriage would be the least likely to be celebrated. The next protection was, that it was required that the marriage must be celebrated within three months after the publication of the banns. It was no small security that the marriage was required to be cele brated under these circumstances in the church of the parish where the parties reside, and in the presence of the parochial Clergyman, to whom the parties must be more or less known, and who, being persons of education and respectability, if there were any suspicion of a clandestine marriage, would interpose to prevent it. But there was still more, that which he consi dered one of the greatest protections—that marriage was cele brated with all the solemnities of religion, and in the presence of God, and under the most solemn sanctions.—( Hear.) By the Bill before the House all these protections were withdrawn. The parties were not bound to have banns published in any instance. The marriage might take place not only in the parish where the parties resided, but in any parish in the king dom which they chose to select—not in the church or recog nised building, but in any place where the parties might choose, and where no person could anticipate that such a marriage would be performed. He contended that this Bill opened the door to clandestine marriages, not only to Dissenters, but to every class of the community. After this Bill passed there would be nothing to prevent any member of the Church of England from being married in any place he chose, or by any person he chose, or without the necessity of having the mar riage performed in any place of religious worship. His first objection was that notice was not required to be served upon the registrar of the particular district in which the parties resided, so that two parties residing in Middlesex might if they so chose, serve their notice in Yorkshire.—( Hear, hear.) Again, there was no penalty inflicted by the Bill for a false notice. Then, with regard to caveats, there was this anomaly, that no person except a parent or guardian could enter a caveat without subjecting himself to heavy damages. So that if a man were to marry a second wife during the life time of the first, the first wife could not enter a caveat nor any other person except a parent or guardian. Again, with re gard to the place where marriages might be celebrated by the present Bill, a building which had once been licensed for the purpose, no matter to what use it might thereafter be con verted, would still continue to enjoy the same privilege— ( Hear)—and, what was still more strange, the ceremony might be performed by any person whatsoever. He would wish to know whether the Bill intended to prohibit the publication of banns? Lord J. RUSSELL—No. Mr. GOULB URN was glad it was not so intended; but there was this to complain of, that, besides the publication of the brnns, the members of the Church of England were obliged also to give notice at the Registrar's office. Why, in a measure purporting to be for the relief of Dissenters, in troduce a clause which imposed a double obligation on mem bers of the Church of England ?—( Hear.) Why compel members of that church to pay twice for that ceremony ? Why, greater were likely to ensue under this Bill than under the present Marriage Act.—( Hear.) Dr. LUS HINGTON was as desirous as any person to avoid the evils of clandestine marriages ; but if it were at tempted to impose too great a restraint, the remedy would be worse than the evil. He was ready, however, to strengthen the safeguards against clandestine marriages ; and, contrasting those proposed in the present Bill with those which at present existed, he contended that the latter fell very far short. At present the doors were widely open to fraudulent marriages ; for though the letter of the statute was against them, what did it avail if its spirit could be e vaded ? Banns were at pre sent neces sar y ; but from the caseoftco the or onuclniecrkat,iotnheayndmeigmh-i: veyance p ar ti es m i g ht with little trouble expense go t o th e next parish, where, for half - a -crown give in their names and get the banns published ; the marriage would t a k e place, and although it should be performed in the parish of one of the parties, still, after having been made, the law called it valid. Could that be said to be protection? Se vere restrictions bad been tried before, but they had so signally ----- ------. ..--- __________------- -- -- 7 I failed that the House was compelled not only to render Yam all the marriages which had taken place under those restric tions, but even to deprive persons of vested rights which would h a ve arisen to them if those marriages had not beer* validated. With re gard to the restricrion supposed to be posed by the license system, he would .anly say that any adult person might procure one under a false flame. It nt l g, lit be d said th e affidavit a ff„ r ded a protection, but experience snowe. that 114 , 050 who w ished to contract clandestine marria.es had but little Ta g a rd for the sanctity of an oath. . It was 'obvious, then, th a t the sxisting law was insufficient for the purpose forirs vvhich it was intended. In the proposed measure tlie ivr,elia. of the unions would his able to select persons fit for the 'woe s of registrar amongst the reseeetablc portions of the humbles classes, in whom as much reliance conld be placed for strictness and integrity as in any Member of that House. Under the re sent system the Clergymen of the Church of England sornetim ` es objected to perform the ceremony; but those. objections wet o very few, and on an average they wefe but as one in the, even when the parties were. under age. indeed, when the banns were published they did not deem it ri;.,,lit to refuse except in some L rare and extraordinary case. With' rngard to checking tlandestine m arriages, no step could be takeu either under the ?resent law or the proposed meaasure unless the pa rties in rested in p re v e nting them were aware they were likely to take place. If shut out from one county, those intending to or per enter into ;Item wou ld resort to another and another, haps at last rest - Pt to another country. Sir R. INGLI.3 had a great objection to having" looked upon in any O'er light than as a religious obligation. lie also objected to the !lin because it was not framed excf,h.ii sively in reference to Dis,-eaters. He contended that a I °' could be framed for the relief of Dissenters without affezting. at all the interests of those who adhered to the Church of bc pro- England, as far as regarded whom she present might nouncel a Bill of pains and 1 • pena ties. to be The 8 . 11 t was then read a second film, and ordered committed on Monday next. Sir R. INGLIS said it would be a great convenience ,t 1 many Hon. Members if the Noble Lord would state when W u. diseuision would really be taken. Marriage • e Lord J. RUSSELL said he would give a week's noti ce measure r ur ß e R. for tPEELhat relief lie f o fwtaismp conscientiouserrectlyready st,!,rcueinopnairsecna:teir.dstcpbtesirinoesi senters which should at the same time give the and provide against that which the Hon. and L ber had justly described as one of the greatest evOs to it w society was subject, namely, clandestine marriages.---,( order here suggested that the Rig ht Hon. Baronet net beggedto p' ii e don. in bringing the that the frward now.) He He understood discussion was to be would bring forward the question in committee. BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM. isbop,..ie The Order of the Day for the second reading of the 13 v • of Durham Bill having been read, our s° Sir R. PEEL inquired whether the Bill indicatedthe uni., which Government meant to pursue with relation to th e versity of Durham. w ith Lord J. RUSSELL said the Bill left the que sti°n De• taken non. regard to the University of Durham entirely an °Pt c a t to The Bishop would take the Bishopric of Durban) stwJeaa. certain restrictions and regulations which the Bill iint s .,, t y' Sir R. PEEL expressed his earnest hope that his La the let Government would fulfil the munificent intentions of Bishop of Durham with regard to th is University. g i j o a in i.. t Mr. H. L AMBTON (as we understood) protested the regulations established for the government of the in iy a a rta _ rot versity of Durham as narrow and bigotted. It was matter of considerable importance that there should be a: t he University for the North of England. But whY be ilO Dissentors of the North to be excluded from th e " v i 111 which it conferred? He called on the Noble Lord bei jinten''' as the leader of' his party, and as one who had e' er us e liV en ters of with an attentive ear to the g rievances of Dissenters, best efforts to throw open this University to the piss° the North of England. , t o Was 1 Mr. A. TREVOR said the University of Derus-,,,d an splendid monument of the munificence of the dep ar.,.. b boi ever lamented prelate. It was an institution fourwleta lanes' out of the revenues of Ole Established Church, free f tbat tion of those who would be brought up to the ministY ° o pen Church, and he saw no reason which it should be t hrow n o pen those who dissented from she faith which was there 1 5 0 , cated, and did not believe in ,the doctrines which it 'l o w tended to promote.—( Hear.) Serious objections we re f ;es e tamed in the county of Durham ,+0 the Bill. Ma n y ° lce ° excellent establishments which owed much to them 11 , hi of preceding Bishops would be materially injured by l t ' bs' Lord J. RUSSELL only rose in e onsequence of W lll . / . 4 i t clia been said in reference to Earl Grey. That Noble Le"-aerth certainly approve of a University being esoblished in then ° of England, but he did not think it wise to g i ve 01 0 a ls° salary to those who undertook the professorsNiPs, rniveri,A thought that though all the emoluments of the '''' a s ho' were confined to the Church, all its honours and deJ„,„ . OO.:A be equally open to persons of all religious pers'7,lanisP" (Hear, hear.) On this point the late Bishop of Dar sae Grey differed. aid, i" Sir R. INGLIS said this University was establis 001 years ago, out of the funds of the late Bishop of Pe r cut ch of the revenue of the Church for the promotion of the t 'uni. Establishment, and it would be as unjust to divert th,attinierr versity to other objects than those contemplated dolee O bo bad as it would be to divest the funds of any Noble r vi The invested them in any foundation of any kind whatever' The founder had alway a right to limit the appropriatin dotieS Bill proposed to separate the spiritual from the tenWerta alai of the Bishop of Durham, and consequently to dePr i ,' a pe. Prelate of much of the dignity which now attached to b'' Against this he begged leave to enter his protest. fro it Mr. PEASE, objected to this Bill, that it took awsYrtoioo population much in need of religious and moral bl,attinsa" those revenues which could not be better applied, nor t. '° olo t hey ner more consistent with the intentions of those by W"., ai her of, were originally bestowed, than in educating a vast ' I ; weat al those within the county of Durham, whose moral e° culture had been much ,neglecte d. he 011 was a : After a few words fro:u Mr. ROEBUCK, t... Monv read a second time, and ordered to be committed 01l next. The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were 9 0011/ read a third time and passed. Lio SLAVERY ABOLITION (JAMAICA) P ig 'll b e° Mr. GLADSTONE said that in relation to this - I gee? ( l believe that a case had been fairly ina,de out. The ill rls not would say, that the Assembly t m h e o a u n gh tot t, sanction t i i f on h e t h w e conduct erea m e mohf erGoo.fvetrhnemAengste°lnf b l .1 . of Sgt maica he to boo the act of the Council. He admitted Lor. l Sli g ° honest, active functionary, and he re retted thit be, sh r ° If i th : committed iut himself iuterfere against vvitit the the Assemblylegislative g ofooJnaralc-• the P-. semhly of Jamaica he would su oil it. lat e duet ° f , ee,: better to G. GR E Y said the Bill p v ij vas founded lative Si enactment for the abolition of slavery." t i ll': th°tlglP A t i o l i u m3 i s i t l: he Bill without any fir t , st againstiiie Bill inte interference. ce wrislleoaAualvdaAntoiLtirdoEhtNjielcecst^onntihi's:'clßlidl, Plittesnrt°o:l4ll t hat n e; Mr. BUCKINGHAM begged to ask if it we re tr- ssu iell a so far from there having been any necessity for were b ° ,,e ar tle new fleet about to be launched ; and if so a 1 sufficient number of men had volunteered to etilis t ,: gok f i h a d this 10 - in consequence of the l ate tart' supply been produced • enactments. Sec Mr. G. WOOD said it was all true—men nelerke, known to enlist so voluntarily in the navy as the,' w. were 0 1d 17 : to have done within the last fortnight, and tb is -19 bl t he latemainly traced to the inducements held out to then~ or; commissioned, regulations. Within the last fortnight cigh t i S ti i nd 1 , 1° ;0 they for which 4,500 men were requlreut 05 0 a only wanted 1,300 men. Formerly fishermen fiocitae,. r to unaway at the sight of a man-of-war ; but now tbe h l ud re id the naval station for enlistment voluntarily i t he /1111 There was never known such a disposition to 3° .° service as at present.—( Hear, hear.) 0 00' NAVY ESTIMATES. The House then went into Committee on the n , a/ e Y oj c p s iofe tli° 118,0001. for salaries for officers for ti lena v y , t o. dock-yards was agreed to. Agree d 2 , 4,3251., for the workmen in the dock-yards.---''' Thefhe next vote was 471,491/. for naval stores. , ell t9 vote on this item was then put and cars, r over ° 6 0 97r 6 :e29 , p o 22a o llillr l is / .. ff—oo f r o r for new aidisrNact-nooe.r miscellaneous u s s in se r vi the c s d . ____ o c kAy: ret : P , , and: 91590,2,058691./.foforrecolniavici of naval stores. 10. Sout,_" e . a ttelt"o 4 the Neva convict vessels, and wished to Mr. GOULBUR:N begged leave to call to .. ,. e f A p , the House to the late melancholy loss of the Geo: , lion , „ s o gvieng.ofctortainviscptosrttos.---jAv stores. - Afir e 0. case f i‘ t liiore.fs the l F o o s G s co e e s po , rgree f ip whichllii.e.dso thatu occurred i n to ae :io r e. cretary o of the Navy if inquiries had been ma de been a source of considerable theregr.et in the Jilt/Ate/It ef e . which he was interested, and their best attention (1 , 0 -b oo stowed to discover the true cause and proper NO the 00, to calamities. The system h system t seof takin up- vessels for to leatio, eartie ltocsrsre termination lir a ° ef tl n itAe : rci t it:e °o; b ill, toether, oyaglisa service had, previous to 1833, been'found in prneteerabl:e 0 of e increased um iFmeo raf ed safetyde shipwreck inspection. hn ti 1 i 1 n v a d r en c y r cr o l ic t n r ots p stE vi te iit cs t he o ssi 1 t the O f cared[ e o t 1 f a i 1 very dangerous results, but since that time co thens " a doP t ' ° sil I vantages.. and , vae a .td nd b it e i e v a as found tl.at no part of th eir • he le ° ft h 0 N a cib r n o: s rlit sie i m i l rt s ii p eo r sn t o t attributed to any neglect Ind ' the time carefully examinedof o r i n t e l l :e t fi ' e fitting out, as theY fit P r t hir d b r o a a u rd (h i y ve u re igiittou) fives service in every respect, The loss of the Ger°9l.ool ° t he traced, after a patient investigation, to the %ode, i'..ito. captain , frT oc o s : 49 6 .1. 11. ' aunpdrepaired,l attelan-frtotoinf:c itisPviecetr(s°ti: convicts to reach his destination by the shortest Pa the se e t' He thereforeiet"n suffering . tra it not h e dh e fs t to rous part of the coast, with which, it appeare , __,. ;lie . in ficientl acquainted to preserve his vessel frow_., 0 0 1 _gbe thereb Y y exposed her to Tlvessel, however, r_. o yes', r e , The ,_. l iv _op unsound state • had f ore this ,as been asserted by son u_ a t hory - bi. . voya ge to Sydney, she had undergonu res in . pair, and w• through al fl oss ,in as nearly as good as new Mr. A. CHAPI • -*a from Or . e ideP o pt i lAN could not refr-i nate at ' tor t 0 conviction that the chief cause of the untortu i . in co 0 fi the • convict service arose from the emploYrnentotoodr, d f an persons as commanders, whose deficiency ° f " 1. 11. for conspicuous.morfle on e s f Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that thought '-' d o 0 the Neva were old vessels, lvanbe g oo st'ste For they happene the ~ , 't tie . 6°, the sO C th e 'en takinc , ,up and inspecting vessels that nag u p bY 0 1 instance, the Anne was inspected when taken,. the eon vernment inspectors as tit tor the service 'l3u‘